Wednesday, March 5, 2014

3d DCA Watch -- Ash Wednesday Edition!



This morning begins the first day of Lent, a 40-day period of reflection, prayer, and abstinence.

Though I'm as Jewish as a bagel-and-schmear can be, I appreciate those who observe because I think there is something very edifying about foregoing something you desire/want/need for a purpose that is beyond yourself.

In other words, it's one thing to give up chocolate to feel healthier or to lose weight, but it's another thing entirely to abstain for something outside of yourself -- to give glory to the creator or for one's small place in the world or simply to be part of a community that is engaged in the same self-sacrifice.

My Gin Gibson is raised in your honor!

Onward:

Ross Dress for Less v. Castro:

Oh boy, I feel another lesson in how to litigate like professionals coming on:
Ross Dress for Less Virginia, Inc., and U.S. Security Associates, Inc., seek certiorari relief from an order holding them in contempt and sanctioning them for discovery violations by imposing a $200 a day fine; striking their pleadings; entering a default against them; and allowing an amendment to the complaint against them to include “by interlineation” a claim for punitive damages. On the analysis outlined below, we grant the petition and quash the order under review in its entirety. Additionally we note what transpired here was a textbook case of the tail wagging the dog. Relying on the solitary uncorroborated comment of a single nonparty, Respondents’ counsel, employing hyperbole and declared outrage, set out on a quest to collect hundreds of apprehension reports, continuing even when Petitioners swore under oath that they had handed over all such reports in their possession, leaving unanswered the real issues before the court, as counsel chased the nonexistent and irrelevant.
Ok, but other than that -- affirmed?

Also Judge Shepherd gilds the lily:
I write to underscore the initial point made by my distinguished colleague who penned the majority opinion in this case. Courts are not fact-free zones. Tactics of the type exhibited in this case are corrosive to the rule of law.
Yikes -- this might be a good time to repent.



21 comments:

  1. You're on a roll this week.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Rosa Rodriguez is, respectfully , out of control.

    She's muy popular, in the halls of the bunker.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Too bad the Third can't muster that type of outrage when defendants DO engage in discovery violations. You have to love the in terrorem effect of mentioning by name all trial court judges, be they deceased, retired, or sitting.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Many different judges on this one - not so fast. "On August 28, 2007, Judge Maria Espinosa Dennis, the first of four judges assigned to date to this case, ordered Ross to produce its policy and procedures
    manuals as well as a number of other documents."

    Seem like the third is sending a message to the trial bench. it doesnt usually include the name of trial court jusdes in the opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  5. and lando and platzer.....

    ouchie.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 11:50 may be partially right, but this case shows how discovery has now become an end of itself. What difference did any of those reports make to the issues in this lawsuit?? None, yet four years of time was wasted on it. State trial judges need to get a grip.

    ReplyDelete
  7. stay out of state court , for sure.

    what a blistering indictment of state court .....

    ReplyDelete
  8. Kinda sad that in reading the introductory remarks in this post it was immediately apparent who had NOT written it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I hope the Castros attorney took this case on a contingency and now got jack sh*t for spinning wheels for three years.

    ReplyDelete
  10. There will be a time when I avoid what I desire. I'm calling it "death."

    ReplyDelete
  11. state court judges need to wake up and flush the toilet of all the gutter lawyers who denigrate the practice like this. and put a stop to it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Great song.

    -GB

    ReplyDelete
  13. If they, "flush the toilet of all the gutter lawyers who denigrate the practice like this," then there would be no members of the bar.

    ReplyDelete
  14. 30 pages for something that could have been dealt with in 5. Where is the bar referral?
    What about some comment on the decision where the court calls out one of its prior decision as being clear as mud. Talk about judicial snark.

    ReplyDelete
  15. ummmm...creator?

    ReplyDelete
  16. you prefer deity?

    ReplyDelete
  17. hmm, how 'bout science...

    ReplyDelete
  18. RE: Though I'm as Jewish as a bagel-and-schmear can be

    -Too cute.

    Awesome post, SFL!!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Either works, I'll even accept Stan Lee, creator of the Marvel Universe.

    ReplyDelete